Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin-c
5th Imperium was legal from Baen's viewpoint, the question was whether or not Baen made it clear to the authors they were allowing the CD's to be posted on the web.
|
No, this is not "the question". From a legal standpoint:
- The 'mutual assent' (also referred to as "meeting of the minds") of the contract would only be broken due to a (material) mutual mistake (e.g. if Bujold thought that the "works" explicitly mentioned in the contract were her paintings, and Baen thought these "works" were her books), or for misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, or the like. Author 'clarity' on the consequences of the license is simply not relevant.
- The only "question" legally relevant to 5th Imperium (who were in no way a party to the negotiations between Baen and its authors) is whether their publication of the CDs on their site was covered by a relevant and valid license. As it was so covered, this publication was not "piracy" (as Bujold has fallaciously accused) and was not "stealing" (as calvin-c has fallaciously accused). It was in fact perfectly legal (from anybody's "viewpoint").
Lacking a legal leg to stand upon, Bujold was
wholly reliant on the goodwill of 5th Imperium to remove her CD from their site, goodwill which she did her best to undermine with her absurd "piracy" accusation.